Back to articles

No financial charges may be imposed in an environmental permit without an urban planning regulation.

November 7, 2025

The Council for Permit Disputes (RvVb) annulled, on 9 October 2025, a financial charge imposed in a decision granting an environmental permit. Such a charge may, since 2024, only be imposed on the basis of an urban planning regulation within the meaning of Articles 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the Flemish Code for Spatial Planning (VCRO). Prior to the amendment of the Decree, the Environmental Permit Decree did provide that such a financial charge could be imposed by the permitting authority and under what conditions, but it was not required that a regulation be included in an urban planning ordinance.

No financial charges may be imposed in an environmental permit without an urban planning regulation.

Decision RvVb 9 October 2025, No. RvVb-A-2526-0090

What is a financial charge imposed in connection with an environmental permit decision?

A financial charge is an additional obligation imposed in the context of an environmental permit, under which the applicant pays an amount to compensate for the impact of the permitted project. This amount may then be invested by the government in tasks it undertakes, such as the creation of green spaces or infrastructure works. In the case before the Council for Permit Disputes, the financial charge concerned a measure in support of complementary housing policy implemented by the city of Vilvoorde, including the provision of additional school capacity, green areas, and play and recreational spaces, which become necessary when large residential projects are realized.

Such charges may be imposed in a decision on an application for an environmental permit. Since the amendment of Article 75 of the Environmental Permit Decree by the Instruments Decree of 23 May 2023, effective from 1 January 2024, a charge may only be imposed if it is provided for in a regulation that complies with the rules set out in Articles 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 VCRO. These articles establish the formal and procedural requirements that such a regulation must meet, including the organization of a public inquiry.

The requirement that a regulation be included in an ordinance within the meaning of Articles 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 VCRO is justified by the legislator on the grounds of legal certainty and predictability whenever such a financial charge is imposed. In addition, the authority imposing the charge must justify it in light of the spatial policy it pursues.


Facts

In April 2024, a developer obtained an environmental permit for a residential project. The project consisted of several multi-family dwellings in three buildings, totaling 43 residential units, eight single-family homes, and one unit for office, service, or liberal profession purposes. The environmental permit was accompanied by a financial charge based on a municipal ordinance of 2017, amounting to €204.000.

The developer contested this charge, arguing, inter alia, that it could no longer be validly imposed under the 2017 ordinance because it does not comply with the provisions of Articles 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 VCRO.


Decision of the Council

Before addressing the merits of the case, the Council considered whether the financial charge was separable from the permit and therefore could be challenged independently. In this case, the Council concluded that it was indeed a charge within the meaning of Article 75 of the Environmental Permit Decree and a decision separable from the permit, so it could be contested independently.

The crux of the dispute concerned whether the imposed charge could still be validly imposed on the basis of the old municipal ordinance, as the application was submitted before 1 January 2024.

The Council ruled that the new Article 75 of the Environmental Permit Decree applies to all permits as of 1 January 2024, including those submitted before that date. Consequently, the Council for Permit Disputes annulled the imposed financial charge.


Significance of the ruling

Both municipalities and applicants should verify whether the financial charge imposed is indeed based on a regulation within the meaning of Articles 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 VCRO.


For any further questions or assistance regarding environmental permits and the associated financial charges, you can contact Andersen in Belgium (Real Estate team).
Yves Sacreas (Senior Counsel) and Lara Van Dyck (Associate)

Discover more about this topic?

I am looking for a specialist in

See more articles

New rules tighten requirements for sustainability claims in the real estate sector

05.11.2026

•

Real Estate, Renting and Co-ownership, Andersen in Belgium

New rules tighten requirements for sustainability claims in the real estate sector

Sustainable, green, energy-efficient or even climate-neutral: these terms have become commonplace in real estate communications. From the end of September, however, the use of such claims will be subject to stricter rules. The new rules aim to better protect consumers against misleading environmental claims. For businesses, the message is clear: commercial communications will need to be more precise.

Read the article »
Belgium imposes new workplace regulations

05.11.2026

•

Employment Law, Andersen in Belgium

Belgium imposes new workplace regulations

Employers must make sure that their internal policies are up date according to Belgium’s PIA and prepare for a stricter time registration obligation.

Read the article »
No Exact Correlation Required Between Expenses Relating to a Holiday Residence and Benefits in Kind

03.11.2026

•

Tax Law, Andersen in Belgium

No Exact Correlation Required Between Expenses Relating to a Holiday Residence and Benefits in Kind

In its judgment of 18 June 2026, the Belgian Court of Cassation settled an important question concerning the deductibility of expenses incurred in making a holiday residence available to a company director: must these expenses be capped at the amount of the benefit in kind (BIK) taxed in the hands of the director? The Court answered in the negative.

Read the article »
Copyright and Tax Abuse: The Court of Cassation Gets Its Wires Crossed!

03.11.2026

•

Tax Law, Andersen in Belgium

Copyright and Tax Abuse: The Court of Cassation Gets Its Wires Crossed!

In a rather surprising judgment of 14 September 2026 (F.23.0097.F), the Belgian Court of Cassation failed to correctly identify the legislature's objectives when introducing the flat-rate tax regime for copyright and related rights income. The courts should swiftly distance themselves from this judgment!

Read the article »